Set up a website to support my Android app, and after a couple months I started getting a flood of referrer spam filling up my logs. All of it from a couple dozen different netblocks in the Ukraine. I tried a couple different techniques to filter out the bad guys, but at this point I just toss all the netblocks into the reject pile in my htaccess file.
Does anyone actually get legitimate traffic from the Ukraine anyway?
Sure, the real-world violence and power struggles are sad. But from an internet perspective, I have a hard time seeing much to care about.
Yes, but more women take the SAT than men, and yet the ratio of perfect math scores is 2:1 in favor of the men or 2.5:1 after adjusting for the fact that more women taken the test.
Performance in the SAT is not uncorrelated with effort put forth in the math classes prior to the test. That's a variable that's strongly influenced by socialization.
Given the example of things like chess, it would seem that socialization should probably be the default explanation until and unless evidence of other explanations comes to light.
The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you’d see that difference close substantially.... So why are there so few female chess grandmasters? Because fewer women play chess. It’s that simple. This overlooked fact accounts for so much of the observable differences that other possible explanations, be they biological, cultural or environmental, are just fighting for scraps at the table.
Ah, okay. Gotta call Poe's Law on this one. It doesn't really matter if you're serious or not - either way, you're just cherry-picking passages to respond to and not addressing the salient points (e.g., the economic question). So, um... have a nice life, I guess.
Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone making money doing this? (I can suggest one possibility...)
To both me and gweihir below, your comments both boil down to, "You're wrong!" (Though if we include tone, perhaps it should be "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong, sillybutt!") Even if you're correct about either of us being wrong, absent the slightest argument or indication why we're wrong, I can't see why I should care about your contention.
Well, sure, the creationists primarily care about humans being created by a supernatural deity, sure. The problem is that, to make that work, they have to make a complete hash of pretty much every branch of science - not just biology, but relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, geology, etc.
In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
Actually, its the Theory of General Relativity that accounts for the observations. Same as the Germ Theory of Disease that account for a huge fraction of observed illness. A scientific theory is not a "hunch", "guess", or "notion". It ties together a huge number of observations and makes testable predictions that have overwhelmingly been tested and turned out to be correct.
BTW, that's the case with the Theory of Evolution. Here's my favorite example. (Some actual math here.) Interestingly, we know the Tree of Life with greater prescision than we know the gravitational constant G!
So the advantage to "extemporaneous expression" is... if you can make a correct case, you can make it extemporaneously?
That doesn't work. Verbal debates are stunts. They allow no time for review, or for detailed examination of points raised. Which is one reason why creationists love them - they invented the Gish Gallop.
They usually boil down to who's the better public speaker. A written debate where there's time to think and avoid misstatements and marshal the best evidence and arguments might be useful, but a verbal debate's just a stunt.
I wonder... a time machine and a NetBSD install
on
Apple Macintosh Turns 30
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A/UX was indeed expensive. But even the early Macs could be decent Unix machines, as time (and open source a decade or more later) proved. The SE/30 was an incredible machine - able to take up to 128MB of RAM back when 'standard' was 1MB or less! Mine has seen lots of use as my piddly little home webserver.
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
Wow. I think you need to re-read what I wrote. Carefully.
Pointing out that people can successfully choose not to avail themselves of anonymity - that one can choose to express oneself openly despite risks - is simply not the same thing as saying anonymity should be banned, or even that the option for anonymity isn't important. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. If you want to start a fight, you'll have to look elsewhere.
You need this environment. Even if none of your current opinions are controversial. Because one day yours, or your childrens' opinion won't won't be welcomed by government.
The original question was, who uses a real email address to register anywhere?. (Rhetorically) implying that "EVERY-one" doesn't, or shouldn't, use their real identity on the Interwebs. I replied, pointing out that that's not the case - there are people that do, in fact, enter discussion with their real identiies.
I didn't claim (a) that "EVERY-one" does that, nor that (b) "EVERY-one" should do that, nor that (c) "EVERY-one" should be required to do that. I simply pointed out that (1) it's possible to do that, and (2) at least some people actually do that.
But you, apparently, think that if "ANY-one" does something, that automactially means "EVERY-one" should. To paraphrase Babbage, 'I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a conclusion'.
Nobody wants to work for a bad employer, but most people want to be without money even less.
I'm willing to take the risk, and I was two decades ago, too. So far, it's paid off. I haven't had too much trouble finding places to work with a minimum of BS. I wasn't terrified when Google put Usenet online - but then, I'd always been polite when expressing my thoughts. If someone wants anonymity so they can be the "asshole", I find I have limited sympathy.
What makes you think I say any old fool thing that pops into my head, like an anonymous coward? I'm also on Facebook, but I'm careful what I post there, too.
I've always used my real name when commenting, or (in the case of places like Slashdot) made it easy to find my real name. For decades now. There are a couple posts on Usenet I'm embarrassed about (for example, I got my signs reversed trying to explain the link between electricity, magnetism, and Relativity once) but nothing I would be uncomfortable if a prospective employer saw, or appearing on the front page of the newpaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone actually get legitimate traffic from the Ukraine anyway?
Sure, the real-world violence and power struggles are sad. But from an internet perspective, I have a hard time seeing much to care about.
Performance in the SAT is not uncorrelated with effort put forth in the math classes prior to the test. That's a variable that's strongly influenced by socialization.
Given the example of things like chess, it would seem that socialization should probably be the default explanation until and unless evidence of other explanations comes to light.
Ah, okay. Gotta call Poe's Law on this one. It doesn't really matter if you're serious or not - either way, you're just cherry-picking passages to respond to and not addressing the salient points (e.g., the economic question). So, um... have a nice life, I guess.
And your opinion of me is what I care about most, of course. I'm just crushed. :-)
Actually having to process a "flood of boring information" is too challenging or something? Well... okay, then.
I was interested to see how you'd process it. And yes, unfortunately, it went about like I suspected it would. There's a reason why there aren't any flood geologists in the oil industry.
Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone making money doing this? (I can suggest one possibility...)
To both me and gweihir below, your comments both boil down to, "You're wrong!" (Though if we include tone, perhaps it should be "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong, sillybutt!") Even if you're correct about either of us being wrong, absent the slightest argument or indication why we're wrong, I can't see why I should care about your contention.
In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory not only ties together a wide range of observations, it makes testable predictions that have gone on to be tested and verified. In science, 'hypothesis' is closest to what people commonly mean by the word 'theory'. For example, it's still the "Germ Theory of Disease" in science, but that's been, er, rather thorougly confirmed.
BTW, that's the case with the Theory of Evolution. Here's my favorite example. (Some actual math here.) Interestingly, we know the Tree of Life with greater prescision than we know the gravitational constant G!
That doesn't work. Verbal debates are stunts. They allow no time for review, or for detailed examination of points raised. Which is one reason why creationists love them - they invented the Gish Gallop.
Please explain why "extemporaneous expression" is a mark of being correct. You can do it extemporaneously if you want.
They usually boil down to who's the better public speaker. A written debate where there's time to think and avoid misstatements and marshal the best evidence and arguments might be useful, but a verbal debate's just a stunt.
But it's limited, because I uninstalled their app from my phone the moment they wanted a list of the running apps on my device. I still interact with FB, but using a separate browser app that only talks to FB. With location turned off.
A/UX was indeed expensive. But even the early Macs could be decent Unix machines, as time (and open source a decade or more later) proved. The SE/30 was an incredible machine - able to take up to 128MB of RAM back when 'standard' was 1MB or less! Mine has seen lots of use as my piddly little home webserver.
http://www.pire.org/topiclist2.asp?cms=63
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
http://www.politechbot.com/2007/09/21/colorado-sheriff-creates/
No, seriously - can anyone offer a reason why we should believe what they say?
Pointing out that people can successfully choose not to avail themselves of anonymity - that one can choose to express oneself openly despite risks - is simply not the same thing as saying anonymity should be banned, or even that the option for anonymity isn't important. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. If you want to start a fight, you'll have to look elsewhere.
See here.
Don't you dare click on the "Homepage" link next to every single one of my comments, you NSA spy!
Actually, no. You are confusing the two.
The original question was, who uses a real email address to register anywhere?. (Rhetorically) implying that "EVERY-one" doesn't, or shouldn't, use their real identity on the Interwebs. I replied, pointing out that that's not the case - there are people that do, in fact, enter discussion with their real identiies.
I didn't claim (a) that "EVERY-one" does that, nor that (b) "EVERY-one" should do that, nor that (c) "EVERY-one" should be required to do that. I simply pointed out that (1) it's possible to do that, and (2) at least some people actually do that.
But you, apparently, think that if "ANY-one" does something, that automactially means "EVERY-one" should. To paraphrase Babbage, 'I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a conclusion'.
I'm willing to take the risk, and I was two decades ago, too. So far, it's paid off. I haven't had too much trouble finding places to work with a minimum of BS. I wasn't terrified when Google put Usenet online - but then, I'd always been polite when expressing my thoughts. If someone wants anonymity so they can be the "asshole", I find I have limited sympathy.
What makes you think I say any old fool thing that pops into my head, like an anonymous coward? I'm also on Facebook, but I'm careful what I post there, too.
To reiterate: "or (in the case of places like Slashdot) made it easy to find my real name"
I wouldn't want to work for an employer that would consider anything I've said "unacceptable".
I've always used my real name when commenting, or (in the case of places like Slashdot) made it easy to find my real name. For decades now. There are a couple posts on Usenet I'm embarrassed about (for example, I got my signs reversed trying to explain the link between electricity, magnetism, and Relativity once) but nothing I would be uncomfortable if a prospective employer saw, or appearing on the front page of the newpaper.